PDA

View Full Version : Sen. Hagel sees echoes of Vietnam in Iraq



somebigguy
08-21-2005, 07:31 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9032036/

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 6:10 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2005

WASHINGTON - A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

“We should start figuring out how we get out of there,” Hagel said on “This Week” on ABC. “But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur.”

Hagel said “stay the course” is not a policy. “By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we’re not winning,” he said.

White House rebuttal
The White House rejected Hagel’s remarks and said it was essential the United States complete its mission in Iraq.

“The president knows a free and democratic Iraq will help transform a dangerous region and lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren,” White House spokesman Trent Duffy said in Crawford, Texas.

“Our policies of the past only allowed the Middle East to become a terrorist breeding ground,” he said. “Quitting now wouldn’t help anyone except terrorist killers, who certainly aren’t quitting their efforts to target innocent people.”

President Bush was preparing for separate speeches this week where he will invoke the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to contend that the United States must stay the course in Iraq and reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.

Growing skepticism
Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush’s handling of the war.

In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.

Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., another possible candidate for president in 2008, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.

Allen: ‘A very crucial time’
“I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq,” said Allen, also on ABC. “The terrorists don’t have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt.”

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

“We’re past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam,” Hagel said. “The longer we stay, the more problems we’re going to have.”

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

‘The dam has broke’
“What I think the White House does not yet understand — and some of my colleagues — the dam has broke on this policy,” Hagel said. “The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together.”

The Army’s top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq — well over 100,000 — for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.

“The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution,” Graham said on “Fox News Sunday.”

‘Complete folly’
Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as “complete folly.”

“I don’t know where he’s going to get these troops,” Hagel said. “There won’t be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years.”

Hagel added: “It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won’t be four years. We need to be out.”

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has “a way to go” before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more,” Lott said, by telling people “why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it’s going to take more time.”

ehnyah
08-22-2005, 06:40 AM
So now we have arrived to the vietnam stage. No longer can it be denied.

The question is, how many plebians will die for "the cause" this time. What's the cause again? Even Bush doesn't know. At least in vietnam you thought you were stopping communists. Today, "the enemy" is faceless, with no "base", thus our soldiers run around like chumps for the old men upstairs. Recall the hilarious joke bubble boy made in the oval office...

Where are the WMDs? Are they under here, over here, no wait, maybe they're over here...hahahahahh....

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/06/320515.jpg

Iraq: A drama in 7 acts (4 down, 3 to go)'

Haven't we seen this movie before? For those of us who survived the Vietnam years, describing the current national narrative will take on a kind of nauseating familiarity. Bad news - we're only halfway home, and the worst is yet to come.

ACT 1 - THE GLORIOUS NATIONAL MARCH TO VICTORY!

Hey, America, we're defending our Homeland from bloodthirsty Infidels! We're not invading! We're showering the benefits of Western-style Free-Market Democracy on millions of grateful Little Brown Persons, whether they like it or not!

Remember President Bush's Rush To Victory Pageant? The flags? The charts? The heart-stopping WMD threats? The UN show-and-tells? The GOP attack ads where Democrats morphed into Osama and Saddam, because they wouldn't Get On Board For the Big Win? Ah, those were the days....

Anyone who dares oppose this essential act of "tough love" martial benevolence is a Satan-inspired traitor with the shriveled soul of a coward.

(That would be me.)



ACT 2 - THINGS GO WRONG.

Whoops! Hey, the Little Brown Persons are less grateful than they should be! NO PROBLEM. Ignore all that bad news. Don't show those body bags coming back. The President knows what he's doing. He's got access to secret intel that you and I don't have. The plan is working. Stay the course. These colors don't run. The silent majority of Little Brown Persons Is with us.

Anyone who dares oppose the act of "liberation" that's now become a war is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Victory is inevitable, if the traitorous Fifth Column of hippie peacenik "Hate America First" protestors don't sap Uncle Sam's vital Will To Win.

ACT 3 - TURNING POINTS (THAT AREN'T)

Here, Administration triumphalism is constantly proven right, except when it isn't, which is every single time.

Hey, let's count the Turning Points, shall we?

* May 2, 2003 -- "Mission Accomplished!" Our Commander-In-Chief announces, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Whew! Victory! Hold on a second.....

* July 22, 2003 -- Uday and Qusay Hussein die in a firefight in a Mosul Palace. This, then, will surely demoralize the "dead-enders."

* December 13, 2003 - Saddam Captured! Ahhhhh, the final turning point. The old leadership has been decapitated. Let the mopping up begin...

* June 28, 2004 - America transfers power back to Iraqis! We'll be out soon!

* November 28, 2004 - "Operation Phantom Fury" - Desperate Insurgents feel the cleansing sting of Superior Yankee Fire-Power in the deciding Battle of Fallujah. This, then is the "beginning of the end" -- the final defeat of this rag-tag band of disgruntled Islamofascists is inevitable.

* January 30, 2005 - Elections! The Iraqi people speak. Republican Congressmen show their solidarity by waving purple digits. The war is in its final throes.

Anyone who denies the obvious truth that (INSERT EVENT HERE) is the final, indisputable turning point in the glorious March To Victory By Juggernaut America is a nihilistic loser, destined to decompose amidst the other trash in the Dustbin of History.

ACT 4 - "OH SHIT" MOMENTS MUSHROOM

This is what we've seen over the last year and a half - the Drumbeat. "American Soldiers Die In Fiery Car Bombing," "Relentless Insurgency Takes Credit For Attack," "Hostages Kidnapped, Killed," "Violence Continues, Death Toll Mounts," "Fathers Mourn," "Mothers Grieve."

At this point, the rhetoric of war supporters abandons reason and devolves into bite-sized talking points: "We're going to win, because we're winners, and winners win. Next question?"

ACT 5 - (WHERE WE ARE TODAY) - SICKENING REALIZATION THAT WE'VE ALREADY LOST. PANIC. DREAD. DENIAL.

Presidential poll numbers tank. "Hoo-Yah!" War Hawks begin issuing measured statements in the passive voice ("Mistakes have been made. Tough choices cloud exit scenarios. New approaches are being considered.") Members of the President's own party inch away from him, fearing collateral damage. The most deluded Hawks fall back on the ultimate piece of political boilerplate, "We must win because we can't afford to lose" (without revealing how we achieve this miracle.)

ACT 6 - CALL DEFEAT "VICTORY", GET THE HELL OUT

Remember a week before the 1972 Presidential election? Henry Kissinger - "Peace is at hand." (Only, of course, it wasn't.) Look for the President to announce that Iraq is a "free, self-sustaining beacon of Democracy that doesn't need our help any more" right before the 2006 mid-terms. A week after, a highly placed Presidential Adviser (speaking on the condition of anonymity) will tell reporters that "We may have been premature....."

ACT 7 - BLAME, DEMONIZE AND PUNISH THE INNOCENT, REWARD THE GUILTY

The Masters of War who got us into this catastrophe with such glee now discover that the best defense is a good offense. "We could have won that war, if the Military had been unleashed and the Liberal Media Conspiracy hadn't brainwashed the American Public against it. Now, let's see...who can we invade next? (Wash, Rinse, Repeat)

Any chance we can head off another decade of war? Another 10-20,000 deaths? Not with War President "Never Made A Mistake, Won't Change Course, Everything's Hunky-Dory, Get Outta My Driveway, You Peaceniks!" As Edward G. Robinson said in "Double Indemnity," (We've) "got to ride this streetcar to the end of the line, and it's a one-way trip and the last stop is the cemetery."

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=22418&mode=nested&order=0